Create Kanban task link

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already establish this as a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds 'writing redacted receipts' as a behavioral trait, which is genuinely useful context about what side effects occur. No contradiction with annotations. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, failure modes, or what happens on invalid parent/child IDs. With annotations present, the base burden is lower and the description adds moderate value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that packs in the HTTP method, endpoint, purpose, relationship direction, body format, optional board param, and side effect (redacted receipts). It is dense but efficient with no wasted words. Could arguably be split for readability, but for a tool description it's appropriately brief.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that schema coverage is 100%, an output schema exists, required params are clearly defined, and annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile, the description fills the key gaps: relationship direction semantics and the receipt-writing side effect. For a relatively simple link-creation tool, this is reasonably complete. The main missing element is clarity on what happens when a link already exists or on dependencies validation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (parent_id, child_id, board) with descriptions like 'Child task id such as t_xxxxxxxx.' The description adds the notational meaning of the relationship (parent_id -> child_id as a dependency direction) and notes the board param is optional, but these are marginal additions over the already-complete schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's a typed POST wrapper that adds a dependency relationship (parent_id -> child_id), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling kanban tools like kanban_task_create or kanban_link_delete. However, the phrase 'typed POST wrapper' is somewhat jargon-heavy and the core action of creating a dependency link could be stated more plainly. The directionality notation (parent_id -> child_id) adds useful specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when this tool is used (to add kanban task dependencies) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like kanban_task_create or kanban_link_delete. No explicit comparison to siblings or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The board param default is mentioned in the schema, and the description notes it's optional, which is helpful contextual information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.